By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 26, 2023.

OTTAWA—The four federal byelections last week sent a definite change message.

This time, the call for change went not to the prime minister, but to the leader of the Conservative Party.

Those byelections on June 19 saw the Tories’ percentage of the vote fall in three of the four ridings.

The Conservatives were not even close to being in the running in Winnipeg South Centre, Man., and their victory narrowed to a mere five per cent in Oxford, Ont., one of Ontario’s safest Tory ridings.

That close result was in stark contrast to the 2021 federal election, when the Conservatives in that riding were at 47 per cent of the vote compared to only 20 per cent for the Liberals.

The good news for the Conservatives was the poor performance of People’s Party of Canada (PPC) Leader Maxime Bernier in the Tory stronghold of Portage—Lisgar, Man.

In 2021, the PPC garnered their best national showing in that constituency, winning 21.58 per cent of the vote. With Bernier running this time, they dropped to 17.2 per cent.

The Tories’ right flank could be damaged by Bernier. On the money front, in the last quarter of 2022, the PPC experienced its best non-election fundraising quarter ever, raising $725,293, not far from the $866,505 donated to the Green Party.

But the Tory left flank is in deeper disarray.

The Oxford battle wound was self-inflicted, as Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre parachuted his chosen candidate into a riding where outgoing MP Dave MacKenzie was promoting his own daughter.

The internal party situation got so ugly that MacKenzie endorsed local Liberal candidate David Hilderley after accusing his party of rigging the nomination results.

It is difficult to read much into the shift in the Oxford vote because it was prompted more by internal infighting than by a popularity spike for the Liberals.

The presence of winning candidate Arpan Khanna, a co-chair of Poilievre’s successful leadership campaign and a lawyer who practices in Mississauga, Ont., turned the riding nomination into an internal battle.

The result could simply be a political one-off, but Poilievre doesn’t appear to be changing his strategy in his take-no-prisoners approach to electioneering.

His tactic may delight his hardline supporters, but it is certainly not helping him with moderate Tories.

Another political slap was levelled at the Conservative leader last week when former Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney praised Prime Minister Justin Trudeau during an Atlantic economic forum in Antigonish, N.S.

Mulroney hailed Trudeau’s leadership on big issues like COVID-19 and free trade, and said that those issues are what he will be remembered for, not for “the trivia and the trash and the rumours that make the rounds in Ottawa.”

Mulroney’s comments were noteworthy, not just for what he said, but also what he didn’t say. The former leader with the largest electoral majority in Canadian history did not even mention the name ‘Poilievre’, instead focusing his criticism on the tone of politics today.

But the message was not lost on anyone. If there is one person responsible for the negative tone in Parliament today, it is Poilievre.

The New Democrats saw their vote percentage fall in all of the byelections. That must also be a cause for concern, as their role in supporting the government’s agenda on progressive social items like dental care and pharmacare appears to be going unrewarded.

That conclusion presents a dilemma for NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, because if he extricates his party from the agreement, it would likely prompt a quick election. The NDP can’t afford a quick vote unless the party can show there is political momentum in their direction.

Instead, the general analysis of the byelection patterns shows voters deciding between the Liberals and the Conservatives, edging out any chance for New Democratic growth.

The Green Party’s candidate for co-leader, Jonathan Pedneault, was also roundly trounced in the Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, Que., byelection that saw former Liberal president Anna Gainey elected by a majority vote.

Most of the opposition votes were split equally among the Greens, the NDP and the Conservatives.

General elections are usually dependent on the popularity of the government, not the strength of the opposition. If there is a national desire for change, that is a difficult wave to reverse.

But if the call for change is focused on the person who wants to replace the prime minister, that could complicate the narrative.

Last year, Mulroney warned Poilievre that he would have to moderate his rhetoric if he wants to win.

Mulroney and the byelections last week reinforced a message of moderation.

It remains to be seen whether Poilievre will listen.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

Sure, it comes with some demographic challenges. With increased demand, the cost of housing in Canada’s major cities is under extreme stress. But that is something that smart government immigration policy can plan for.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 27, 2023.

OTTAWA—One million new Canadians is something to celebrate.

Statistics Canada’s announcement last week that the country’s population will shortly reach 40 million was something of a shocker.

I remember when we were only 15 million strong.

But what is so fantastic about this population jump is that the majority of Canadians are happy about it.

In most nation-wide surveys, by and large, Canadians believe the country’s immigration has led to economic prosperity.

Sure, it comes with some demographic challenges. With increased demand, the cost of housing in Canada’s major cities is under extreme stress.

But that is something that smart government immigration policy can plan for.

Immigration Minister Sean Fraser announced last week that his department would be making some changes to the immigration policy. They include targeting specific subsets of workers for the immigration fast track, and incentivizing the immigration point system for people who are willing to move to underpopulated areas of the country.

Both moves make sense. We need skilled workers to cover off the job gap in certain sectors, and if they can come from abroad, the holes will be filled more quickly than waiting for apprenticeship and college graduates.

That doesn’t minimize the need for the government to aggressively promote apprenticeship and interprovincial migration of skilled labour. But it can supplement the shortages on a short-term basis.

As for the changes to where new immigrants live, that will be met with approval by big-city and small-town politicians.

Big-city mayors know that increasing populations put additional pressures on high-ticket items like local transit and infrastructure.

Municipalities are also grappling with the challenge that most downtown locations are becoming too expensive for the locals, pressuring developers into messy evictions and legal disputes with long-term tenants.

By moving immigrants into smaller communities, the changes plug the workforce gap that those communities are facing and simultaneously encourage local economic growth with the arrival of new families who need to purchase housing, appliances, furniture, and other big-ticket items.

With the exception of the People’s Party of Canada, most federal political parties seem to approve of the direction the government is taking in announcing an increase in the number of annual immigrants welcomed into the country.

Parties usually follow the wishes of the population. In most regions, the population is favourable to the hike in numbers.

However, Quebec is always tricky as the voters there do not want to see the French language undermined by immigrants who have a tendency to prefer raising their children in English.

Quebec has not exactly rolled out the red carpet to newcomers, with rules that prohibit religious headgear in public service positions, including teaching.

It is probably the only province where the majority of citizens would likely oppose a plan for mass migration.

As for the rest of the country, most provincial governments have experienced a direct economic boom related to immigration.

If the current population growth rate continues, the country will end up with almost 50 per cent immigrants within the next quarter century.

At the moment, immigrants comprise one-fifth of the country’s population.

But you only have to visit cities like Toronto and Vancouver to see the impact of migration on the new face of Canada.

And thus far, communities seem to be adapting and thriving.

Of course, there are problems. Triads and some gang elements well-established in their home countries have taken root in Canada.

But most studies show that Canadian-born residents are far more likely to commit crime than those who have come from other countries.

That doesn’t stop PPC Leader Maxime Bernier from railing against all forms of immigration.

But the Conservatives are playing it a lot smarter. For those who oppose immigration, they have been very active in demanding that the government close off leaky borders. In that respect, they are able to satisfy those who oppose immigration while at the same time wooing the communities who very much depend on family reunification and the chance to move to Canada.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had to tackle that issue when the American president put migration front and centre on the bilateral agenda.

U.S. President Joe Biden’s visit to Ottawa has partly focused on amending the safe country agreement so that land borders cannot be used by those who want to transit illegally from the United States to Canada.

With a better safe country agreement, the boom is welcome.

It makes the country stronger.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

Lionizing illegal occupiers has nothing to do with freedom. Instead, it is an attempt to overthrow the social compact that Canada was built on.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 4, 2022.

OTTAWA—Freedom obviously means different things to different people.

In some parts of the world, freedom is survival.

If you don’t have access to food or water, how can you worry about anything more than securing the basics of life?

If you are a woman in some countries, you do not even have the right to leave home unless accompanied by a male member of your family. Absurd though it may be, your son may actually have the authority to keep you locked inside.

If you are a girl in Afghanistan, you don’t have the right to an education. Even if your family could afford to send you, schools are verboten for those who have been born with a vagina.

If you are not a straight male, there are many places in the world where you could be imprisoned or even killed simply for loving someone.

You are not free to be who you are, but must either hide your sexual orientation or simply bury your sexuality to be free.

In some countries, there is no freedom.

But that is not the case in Canada. And as we celebrated our national holiday on July 1, it is time to start calling out those fakers who claim they are fighting for freedom in our country.

Can you imagine any other country in the world where you are so free you can park a bouncy castle in front of Parliament for weeks, paralyzing the operations of government, without being arrested?

Threatening judges and disobeying court orders is common amongst those who claim they are fighting for our freedoms.

Our “freedoms” involve infecting others with variants of COVID simply because they refuse to embrace the reality that vaccines make us all safer.

Why would any political party want to associate themselves with a bunch of fake freedom fighters whose main claim to fame is an illegal occupation of Canada’s capital?

Last week, interim Conservative leader Candice Bergen authorized all caucus members to meet with these fakers, in the name of democracy. She told CTV “I support peaceful and legal demonstrations, and if my MPs want to be there, they’re free to do whatever they want and they’ll answer to their constituents.”

Conservatives are currently battling with the People’s Party of Canada for the favour of those illegal occupiers who continue to display their disdain for the very system they claim to support.

Illegal convoy organizer Tamara Lich was released from prison in March after she agreed to bail conditions which prevented her from inciting another illegal occupation.

Instead, her lawyer confirmed she was arrested last week in Medicine Hat, Alta., for allegedly violating bail conditions. Meanwhile, political parties battle to share the spotlight with Lich.

“This is disgusting,” tweeted Maxime Bernier, leader of the People’s Party of Canada. “Tamara Lich is a political prisoner and the Liberal regime is persecuting her like all authoritarian regimes do with dissidents. We will continue to support this courageous woman.”

Meanwhile, one judge involved in convoy prosecutions is alleging claims of harassment, intimidation, and even death threats.

In an interview with Radio Canada under concealed identity, the judge said multiple threats forced them to change the locks on their home, vary their daily path to work and consider moving their children out of the family residence.

This is harassment and intimidation from a group that claims to be fighting for freedom. The fact that any of these illegal protest organizers could be characterized as political prisoners illustrates just how bizarre our political narrative has become.

Even more strange is the fact that any legitimate political party would want to be associated with this group of twisted malcontents.

Conservative front-runner Pierre Poilievre constantly peppers his speeches with references to freedoms, underscoring that his political goal is to give liberty back to Canadians.

There may be many challenges facing our country, including the bite taken out of our wallets by rising inflation, but it is pretty hard to absorb the notion that we live in a country replete with political prisoners.

That claim has zero credibility.

As we celebrated our real freedoms on Canada Day last week, let’s not fall into the trap of legitimizing the goal of those who use illegal means to make their message heard.

Shutting down communities, blocking roads with bouncy castles and hot tubs, lionizing illegal occupiers has nothing to do with freedom.

Instead, it is an attempt to overthrow the social compact that Canada was built on.

Living in society comes with collective responsibilities.

Happy and Free Canada Day!

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 23, 2019.

OTTAWA—The debate about the debates is debatable.

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau was criticized for not attending the first televised debate organized by Maclean’s magazine and CityTV.

He will face more criticism next week as a likely no-show at the Munk Debates on Foreign Policy Oct. 1 in Toronto.

Trudeau’s explanation is that he is attending three debates, including two organized by a national commission established to manage fair and open televised debates.

The Leaders’ Debates Commission was under attack last week for allowing People’s Party of Canada Leader Maxime Bernier to join the official debates on Oct. 7 in English and Oct. 10 in French.

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer, reacting to the flip-flop by the commission headed by former governor general David Johnston, issued a statement attacking “Trudeau’s hand-picked debate panel.” New Democratic Party Leader Jagmeet Singh decried the decision, disagreeing with People’e Party views that, “promote an ideology of hate.”

Scheer neglected to mention that former prime minister Stephen Harper named the commission head governor general. At the time of Johnston’s debate appointment, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May called the decision “inspired” and lauded the fact that transparent and open criteria would decidedly ensure her presence.

After being denied debate participation in 1988, the Green Party unsuccessfully sued the previous broadcast consortium.

This first attempt to have an independent body set the rules for political debates is certainly not perfect. But it is better than what happened in the 2015 election.

If the Conservatives have anyone to blame about the new format, they need to look no further than their recent leader.

Up until Stephen Harper became prime minister, a broadcast consortium was responsible for ensuring nationally televised debates in both official languages. Established in 1968, the process worked reasonably well for the major parties until, in 2015, Harper refused to participate.

Instead, he joined as many as five independent debates, with little apparent criteria for who organized the events and what was debated.

With the boutique debate strategy, audience participation numbers plummeted. Rogers Media reported an average audience of 1.5 million for the Maclean’s English-language debate. The previous consortium debate surpassed 10 million viewers. The appointment of a former governor general signalled this would not be a partisan effort. And the criteria for debate participation, included in the terms of reference, guaranteed that smaller parties like the Greens would not have to sue to be heard.

The new process ensures broader participation because one of the three criteria is that any party receiving four per cent of the vote in the previous general election is invited. The third criterion, and the one the commission underscored in allowing Bernier in, was that his party has a reasonable chance of winning some seats in the upcoming election.

Those who organized 2015 debates were invited to participate in the Leaders Debate Commission organization. Some refused, launching social media campaigns to convince Trudeau to change his mind and join their separate broadcast efforts.

As it turned out, Trudeau’s absence from the first debate may have played in his favour. The Green and New Democratic parties primarily focused their attacks on Scheer, who appeared defensive and unfriendly.

Trudeau’s absence from next week’s Munk Debate is easier to explain.

No doubt, the admission of Bernier into the debates will change the dynamics. Not only will Canadians see different views on the left of the political spectrum. They will also see real fractures on the right. Much of what Bernier has to say will not be supported by the majority of Canadians.

Bernier’s anti-immigrant message is no doubt going to raise some hackles. But the bottom line is, if an election period is not a good time to discuss different viewpoints on policy, there is no good time.

Former prime minister Kim Campbell announced at the beginning of the 1984 campaign that an election was no time to discuss policy. She ended up going down in flames, with only two members of the Progressive Conservative party left in Parliament after her defeat.

National debates need competing viewpoints. This is really the only time when ordinary Canadians get an insider’s glimpse at what makes political parties tick.

You don’t have to agree with any of them.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

Maxime Bernier’s ideas should be defeated at the ballot box, not in the back rooms of the Leaders’ Debates Commission.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 26, 2019.

OTTAWA—The broadcast debate rule makers need to take another look at their election work. By the current rules established for party leader participation, floor-crosser Lucien Bouchard would have been silenced.

At the time of the 1993 election, Bouchard was the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, having been previously elected as a Progressive Conservative. His party did not field candidates across the country, the second of the three criteria established for entering October’s debates.

The rules currently bar the People’s Party of Canada from the debate because leader Max Bernier was elected as a Tory. Can you imaging the uproar if the founding leader of the Bloc had been denied a seat at the televised debating table?

Rules say a party must run candidates in 90 per cent of the ridings across the country, which again eliminates new regional parties like the Bloc. The threshold for support is either a reasonable chance to win a couple of seats, or support from approximately four per cent of the popular vote in a general election. Current polling numbers situate the PPC just under 3 per cent with a chance to win one seat. Those numbers will fluctuate once the campaign begins.

Not surprisingly, the decision to block Bernier has been met by other parties with muted acquiescence. Conservatives are breathing a sigh of relief because Bernier is trying to tap into the right wing of their base. New Democratic Party Leader Jagmeet Singh went so far as to claim the party should be blocked because its viewpoints are odious, and do not deserve a platform.

Many Canadians might have felt the same way about a separatist party, but it was never denied a voice at the table.

Politicians of any stripe should not welcome state-mandated censorship, even when they vehemently disagree with another party’s viewpoint. An organization headed by a sitting Member of Parliament, with candidate recruitment across the country, deserves a chance to be heard.

Last weekend, Bernier’s party held a countrywide candidates’ convention in the nation’s capital, attended by 500 people. The party has managed to nominate candidates from coast to coast and has even recruited some dubious stars, like the widow of former Toronto mayor Rob Ford.

Bernier, who came within two percentage points of leading the Conservative Party, is no political neophyte. His father sat as a Tory member before him, and with his deep roots in that party, Bernier also managed to recruit a number of former Conservative colleagues. Most of them claim to have left the Conservative party to pursue more freedom of speech. They believe the current crop of Tories are too mainstream, denying debate on race and immigration issues.

The PPC is officially advocating a reduction in annual immigration targets by two-thirds, and an end to multiculturalism in the country. Their leader also claims that climate change has not been caused by human activity, despite ample scientific evidence to the contrary.

I am not a fan of Bernier’s ideas. From his misrepresentation of global warming to his call to build a wall against Canadian immigration, he represents the antithesis of my political philosophy. But surely his viewpoint is relevant.

If politically-appointed committees are destined to decide which perspectives can be aired, how does that strengthen democracy?

Bernier’s ideas should be beaten at the ballot box, but he should not be outside the debates looking in. That only strengthens his party’s capacity to play the victim card. Marginalized supporters will claim that their voices are being ignored in favour of other politically correct perspectives.

Given the makeup of the moderators for the English language debate, you can hardly blame them. The debate airing on October 7 features five respected women journalists, including Lisa Laflamme of CTV, Rosemary Barton of CBC, Dawna Friesen of Global, Althia Raj of Huffpost and The Toronto Star’s Susan Delacourt.

All of the aforementioned have the qualifications and the experience to be excellent moderators. But why should a panel on Canadian politics only include participants of one gender? I would be first to complain if the debate consortium had chosen only men. So why is it okay to repeat gender bias with a women-only line-up? Former governor-general David Johnston, the first-ever debates commissioner, is treading a fine line in decisions on the format and composition of the debates. In French, there will be a mix of genders, with three men and two women journalists.

By excluding Bernier from this politically correct table, Johnson is providing dangerous fodder to the populists.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.